Talk:Sexual intercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] The Foreskin

I find it interesting that the lubricating effect of the foreskin is completely missing from the article. Without the foreskin's mechanical lubricant action, foreplay may take longer and (unless other lubricant is used) the sex act may be painful for both partners. I realise many men don't understand enough about their penis to leave the foreskin extended before insertion of the penis, but Wikipedia is exactly the sort of place where people look for education about such things.

Hmm. I may expand to include what you speak of. Though I'm busy with a lot of other articles on Wikipedia at the moment. Perhaps, someone else wants to try to tackle this? Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why is there a laptop in the 4th picture down? That's just weird. 70.10.94.81 (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? And please don't edit other people's spelling. Not everyone here on Wikipedia speaks American. Furthermore, please add new contributions at the bottom of the page, not the top. Debate (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless whether it's weird, it is unnecessary. Illustrations should confine themselves to the subject so far as practicable. I've switched in the laptop-free version of the picture. —Christian Campbell 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nature

Does it have to be man on top then woman on top then fuck you up the hole>? What is the natural? It is not represented in the pictures but up the hole and man on top woman on top is clearly more important to be viewed. I am not saying that perversion should have no representation but I am saying that its presedent is in itself perverted.
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe the ones of the lions and the flys doing it is a better example? Maybe the anal version is original research and that's against the wikipedia codes?
    ThisMunkey (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    It is purely disrespect to depict natures own version as either a creature feature or an anal perversion and nothing else.
    ThisMunkey (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite get what you're saying. And we aren't depicting nature's own version as either a creature feature or an anal perversion. The first image in this article is of traditional sexual intercourse, between a man and a woman. And the second shows two lions, as to demonstrate animal copulation. And an anal sex image (of two human males) is placed in the appropriate area. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well thats appropriation for you.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Still don't know what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo under a caption

Sorry, I don't know proper etiquette for making new discussions on the talk page, but I couldn't change the page myself. Anyway:

There is a typo under the caption of Hadrian. It says "Avri" where it should read "Avril" as under the other caption.

I suppose this instance of "Édouard-Henri Avril" should also be linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Avril, as in the above caption.

Once again, if this isn't protocol for pointing out changes like this, I apologize.

Once again, if this isn't protocol for pointing out changes like this, I apologize.

No need to apologize. You did fine. Well, except for signing your user name, or in your case, your IP address by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. Anyway, I took care of the problem you pointed out. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something Fishy

There's something strange going on with this page. When you view logged in everything is fine. However, if you view the page while not logged in the entire article is replaced with "lulz". The URL is exactly the same, I can't figure out what's going on. Maybe somebody who knows more about the way these things work can try it and see if they get the same results as I did.BlearySpecs (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Ok.. in case no one's already noticed, the entire article's been deleted, to be replaced with 'lulz'. I'm afraid I've got no idea how to restore it, but could someone do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.38.216 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used only for reproduction"

I can't make head or tale of this statement. First of all, it's not clearly defined; what does "for" mean. Perhaps the intention is to personify evolution, and to claim that the for most non-human animals, the only evolutionary advantage conferred by sexual intercourse is procreative, and that in humans and the other examples it has some secondary function. If so, the statement urgently needs to be reworded so as not to imply that evolution is some kind of person, who is capable of having intentions. Otherwise, is the statement meant to refer to the participants own intention? If so, it the sentence seems to hold that most non human animals are rationally aware of the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth, and make a conscious decision to mate out of a desire to have offspring, which seems highly dubious. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I am under the impression that few animals understand that connection. It seems more likely to be accurate that sexual intercourse is "used [if used means intentionally used] for reproduction" only in the cited humans, bonobos, dolphins, and chimpanzees. I hear this "fact" cited all the time, and it has never made any sense to me. If anyone would explain just what is meant, I would be most thankful. If not, perhaps the statement should be removed (it already has a citation needed tag). 24.21.101.33 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The intention of the sentence is to contrast intercourse for reproduction (ie at fertile periods only, such as estrus) with sex for other purposes (eg recreation). If intercourse was occurring for purposes other than reproduction it would likely occur independent of fertility cycles, however for most species mating only occurs during fertile periods. No degree of intention is implied by the sentence, it is simply a behavioral observation. I agree, however, that this fact should be referenced and the 'citation needed' tag therefore seems appropriate. Debate (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Debate. Saved me from having to explain. Hopefully, I'll have the time soon to add a citation to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

the statement in question is patently false as is proven by repeated citation of qualified professional opinion in Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (ISBN-10: 0312192398). that it appears in wikipedia is an embarrassment and an example of wikipedia propagating unqualified popular pseudo-knowledge as fact. that it can't be simply edited out and i'm forced to just mention it here is another embarrassment. that claim needs to be erased from the entry as does all other content that reflects it. given the article's 'protected' status, i'm dubious the gatekeeper(s) will correct it. but i've done my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.174.112 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so embarrassing, especially since the statement is not patently false. As Debate said, for most species...mating only occurs during fertile periods. That is true, as cited in Helena Curtis's book Biology, which states, "Females of almost all species except man will mate only during their fertile period, which is known as estrus, or heat." We see this time and time again in various species, such as cows, horses, etc. I know that book by Curtis was published in 1975, but what she says there doesn't seemed to have changed all that much, given other valid sources that back up the same statement or point to estrus as largely defining mating among non-human mammal species, or saying something along those lines. I haven't read any part of the book you cite yet, but unless it says that most mammal species do not mate only when the female is in estrus, then all it is really pointing out is that other animals, besides humans, like primemates, are able to and do mate while the female is not in estrus. That is something this article already notes. If the book you cite specifically says that most species mating has nothing to do with the female estrus cycle, then it seems we have a divide in "the qualified professional opinion". Perhaps stating "For most non-human animals, sexual intercourse is used only for reproduction" seems too much as though were saying that those animals aren't also using that time for pleasure and we should instead say "For most species mating only occurs during fertile periods", but it doesn't stop the fact that we're mainly pointing to estrus as largely defining mating among mammal species, which is true. And that statement is now cited with two of the references I provided in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why isn't there a real life picture of a man and a woman having sex (I'm not volunteering)? Bsrboy (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Artistic renderings in this case enable the article to depict the subject with a degree of clarity that isn't necessarily easy to do in real life without convoluted camera angles and artificial poses that simply end up looking pornographic and not educational. Nonetheless, if you can find or produce a suitable photo that's in the public domain there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to add it. Debate (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I find a picture that's in the public domain or how would I know if it's in the public domain? Bsrboy (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple search "sex" on google. You'll get like 20,000,000 hits. ACDCPres 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this question on Bsrboy's talk page. Debate (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

hey sex is fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.165.230 (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering yourself? Bsrboy (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated information

The passage right above the Contents box that talks about the functions of sexual intercourse is disputable. It needs the attention of an expert. First, it could be incorrect. Second, it is overly simplistic. The claim that most animals have sex for reproductive purposes is misleading. A distinction should be made between more social and less social species. Regarding social species, the article claims that a small number of species engage in non-reproductive and homosexual sexual activity to strengthen social bonds. This claim is only partially accurate; first, more species than that have been studied and shown to have such behavior; second, the functions of these behaviors have not been established completely, and the scientific theories at present "presume" that sexual behavior can serve other functions as well, so "social bonds" is an oversimplification. Overall, this passage reads like one taken from a children's encyclopedia, where everything is oversimplified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blagov (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything in that lead is correct. How do you assume that no one working on this article isn't an expert in this field? Sure, this article isn't GA (Good Article) or FA (Featured Article) status yet, but a lot of us are busy and have lives outside of Wikipedia, of course. The lead of Wikipedia articles are meant to represent the article as a whole, not elaborate on every little detail of the subject. Thus, the lead does not read like a children's book, it's just not overly complicated. The body of the article (excluding the lead) is for going into all the detail you mentioned. Feel free, of course, to go in depth within the article about what you've stated here on its talk page. You stated, "The claim that most animals have sex for reproductive purposes is misleading." Well, as I just mentioned above, it is true that most animals (non-human) have sexual intercourse when the female is in estrus. But I will tweak that lead to make it tie-in more to that, so that it doesn't seem so much as though we're saying these animals aren't also having fun while in the act. You also stated, "A distinction should be made between more social and less social species." The lead does note animals that have sex not solely to do with the estrus cycle, but I'm not sure we should go into detail about distinction between more social and less social species, not in the lead. That should be expanded in the body of the article. And the article doesn't really say that a small number of species engage in homosexual sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent in Canada

At the bottom of the article, under the heading "Sexual ethics and legality", the minimum age of consent across Canada is given as 14. This is no longer true. The age of consent is now 16. 124.209.40.119 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adults having sex with children.

I reacted to this: "Adults having sex with children (also called child sexual abuse)." While all other sexual preferences list their "scientifical name", this is the only one not doing it. Shouldn't it be "also called Pedophilia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.213.114 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While the scientific name should be used (Pedagogary?), it isn't pedophilia; pedophilia describes the condition of sexual attraction to children by adults. Therefore it is a psychological condition which does not need the physical act to be apparent. However, the legal term for sexual conduct between adults and children and other minors is (child) sexual abuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Swyve"

Oh, that's a Middle English word for sexual intercourse, meaning "to have sex", and apparently Geoffrey Chaucer used it. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condom failure rate

The article says "if one is wearing a condom, the sperm will almost never reach the egg," but the condom article says the pregnancy rate with typical use of condoms is 10-18% and still as high as 2% for perfect use. Percentage points per year are a far cry from almost never. Should the former statement be removed (all I have time for) or patched up to be informative and correct? —Christian Campbell 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support removing it. IMHO, references to contraception are best left to more comprehensive articles elsewhere. Debate (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. —Christian Campbell 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)